Why Aren't GOP Candidates Talking About Debt & Deficits?

These days, would-be presidents are only interested in increasing spending, especially on defense.

Among the many things missing from either of last night's GOP debates (coff, coff, Rand Paul) was any substantive discussion of reducing overall government spending. Toward the end of the undercard debate, Carly Fiorina did say something about the Republican Party being devoted to shrinking the size and spending of government, but that was about it.

Sure, there were stray comments about how awful President Obama has been when it comes to running deficits and increasing the debt (true, true), but ultimately the culprit is spending more than you take in.

As we're never slow to remind partisans, the latest supercycle of WTF budgeting began in earnest under George W. Bush who kicked out the jams on budget restraint like The MC5 tripping on speed. Jeb Bush railed against sequestration at one point and Mike Huckabee pushed for full funding of Social Security forever and ever, amen. The longest discussion about spending per se might have come when Marco Rubio slagged Ted Cruz for voting for a Rand Paul budget that would have—egads!—cut defense spending!

[Rubio:] Every single time that there has been a Defense bill in the Senate, three people team up to vote against it. Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. In fact, the only budget you have ever voted for, Ted, in your entire time in the Senate is a budget from Rand Paul that brags about how it cuts defense.

Most GOP candidates this cycle aren't even paying lip service to the conservative goal of not adding to the deficit; they're not trying to hide that their tax plans would add billions and in somecasestrillions of dollars to the deficit….

it's not just GOP candidates, either. Members of Congress utter the words "deficit" or "debt" far less frequently than they did a few years back. That's according to Capitol Words data provided by the Sunlight Foundation, which mines the Congressional Record to measure how frequently politicians use certain words.

Total mentions in Congress of "deficit" peaked in 2011 at 8,101. The count declined to 1,543 mentions in 2015. The use of "debt," too, has fallen precipitously since 2011. (The debt ceiling crisis in August 2011 no doubt fueled the spike then.)

Flowers writes that an improving budget situation explains part of the neglect. Although deficits under Obama remain at or near record-high levels, they have gotten smaller over the past few years, partly because a gridlocked government relied on continuing resolutions to fund the government. It's almost impossible to increase spending via CRs, which meant that year-over-year spending, after being jacked to record levels, actually flattened and fell under Obama (don't worry, it's going back up!). Flowers also suggests that Republican candidates might not want to acknowledge deficits have fallen under a Democratic president.

He concludes:

FiveThirtyEight

As more people lose interest in the deficit, Republican policy experts face a conundrum: how to raise alarm about what they still consider to be the government's profligate fiscal policy and how to promote conservative solutions when enthusiasm is waning.

Timothy Kane, an economist at the conservative Hoover Institution, worries that politicians (of both parties) will kick the can down the road until built-up debt triggers a financial crisis. "Politicians don't care about debt until it's too late," Kane said.

Let me suggest another explanation, which I think provides a tighter fit with observable reality: The Republican Party is not actually dedicated to reducing spending by the federal government. Leave aside the many rhetorical gestures to the contrary. Yes, they complain about "out of control" spending under Democrats ad even occasionally under their own party. But when you look at the GOP's policies, votes, and speeches, virtually all of its representatives are clearly in favor of an always-esacalating defense budget and maintaining or increasing current levels of spending on Social Security and Medicare. Republicans might be fooling themselves or they might be trying to fool the public into believing they're fiscal hawks.

But if you're for those three things, there's virtually no way you can reduce overall spending. They simply make up too much of the federal budget. Out of nearly $4 trillion in spending, Defense costs $600 billion, Social Security $895 billion, and Medicare around $620 billion. Throw in another $230 billion for interest on the debt, and you're well over the 50 percent mark. Individual tax expenditures (such as mortgage-interest deductions and non-taxation of employer-provided health insurance and pension savings) cost another $1 trillion.

In budget proposals released last year for the current fiscal year, Obama's projected spending about $50 trillion over the coming decade. The House Republican budget projected spending $43 trillion over the same time frame, with annual outlays growing from $3.8 trillion to $5 trillion. Yes, that's lower than what Obama wanted, but it's still more money each and every year, forever and ever, amen.

If, as Carly Fiorina said (and many believe), the Republican Party was truly committed to spending less money, you would expect not just to hear it in their rhetoric, but to see it in their policy proposals and budget plans. Instead, we're treated to silence on the questions of looming debt that threatens to slow growth for a very long time and explosive exchanges about the awful, terrible votes in favor of a budget that would actually reduce the amount of money the government shells out every year.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

And climate change, Nick. After all, World Economic Forum said failure to address it is the number one threat facing mankind, even greater than weapons of mass destruction. Instead of birth certificates and New York values, a moment or two on that would have been nice as well.

Why would the debate include any mention of Climate Change? You may still be trying to sell this con to others but AGW has been so thoroughly exposed that even those who strongly supported it are now either questioning it and or admitting that it was a huge lie cooked up by the rich and powerful to try and enact more controls over society. The climate pushers had their window of opportunity to push this long con and they failed. Why then would the debate make even a vague reference to it?

Well Republican voters actually favor higher spending. That is why you don’t hear so much about debt and deficits nowadays. They just don’t think it should go to welfare leeches, but they are on board with getting their share of middle-class welfare.

Exactly what I try to explain to those who try to lump libertarians in with conservatives. We don’t care if it’s for defense, welfare, middle class entitlements, corporate welfare or what have you — FUCK YOU, CUT SPENDING! Also, we don’t care if it’s for fighting terror, drugs, or whatever — ENOUGH WITH FOREIGN WARS ALREADY.

All politicians need read the constitution and STOP THE DAMN SURVEILLANCE and REIGN IN ALL THE ROGUE COPS!

These days I find I’m as far from Repubs as I am from Dems on just about every issue and I’ve reached the point where I don’t care if only 3% thinks like us. It just means the other 97% are sadly confused or just slow.

Thank you. I have long argued that the military is just red state welfare. Too many libertarians cling to some false sense of alliance with conservatives. Personally, when people ask me who I hate more, liberals or conservatives, I reply that it depends on who I read about last.

The military spending seems to be mentally encoded in the minds of conservatives, as being off-limits. I’m not sure why. They claim to favor cutting funding for social programs, but only the ones that Obama and progs like… but I still have no faith that they would actually cut anything.

Rand Paul and, to a lesser degree, Ted Cruz have mentioned a few things about cutting spending, but it’s not enough.

Really? Wow, I didn’t even realize he was Jewish. So, all the crap we heard about Romney being Mormon and yet I haven’t heard one peep from the media that Sanders would be the first Jewish President if he won.

Personally, I don’t care, but it’s clearly one more example of the media framing the national debate.

I’m not all that surprised it’s not been publicized much, though. He doesn’t wear his religion on his sleeve (like Joe Lieberman does) and I don’t think the media takes his campaign very seriously or seem him as much of a threat to Hillary. Otherwise, we’d likely be hearing more about it.

Can’t shut down government, but demand candidates talk about deficits and debt.

If congress can’t use its power of the purse, and every shutdown is “bad” then what’s the point?

I guess a GOP president wouldn’t threaten to veto as Obama/Reid did…except the GOP don’t have 60 senators, so there would still be Democratic filibusters unless everything is funded because of fear of a shutdown.

Also, stop calling it a ‘shutdown’. The government never shut down. For a few days they could only spend what they took in in revenue. For a few days they had to live by a balanced budget. They still collected billions and spent billion. It never ‘shut down’. The next time it happens stop paying taxes and see if the government really ‘shut down’.

Great post but it’s disconcerting to hear a libertarian refer to “mortgage-interest deductions and non-taxation of employer-provided health insurance and pension savings” as “individual tax expenditures” which “cost” another $1 trillion. If the fact that I am taxed at x% instead of x+1 is a tax expenditure that costs the government money, it implies that they own 100% and everything they allow me to keep is costing them money.

I was going to reply “the same reason Colonel Sanders doesn’t talk about healthy diet,” but actually I Googled “KFC healthy menu” and got several hits indicating that there was in fact such a thing (if you’re extra-careful, I assume).

My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

It’s also true that Ponzi schemes never end well, so FDR’s SS and LBJ’s Medicare were basically guaranteed fuck you’s for future generations.

The “fairest” solution at this point is to phase out SS/Medicare over 30 years and allow (note I didn’t even say encourage) people to save for their retirement instead of being actively penalized for it. Every year presently retiring people would get incrementally less (say 3%) than the previous full plan and payroll taxes would be reduced by a similar amount. Debt will go up but at least the unfunded liabilities would have a finite time horizon and the cost would be amortized over multiple generations.

2008: OBAMA: [to Clinton]: I think we should be honest in presenting our ideas … and not just say that we’re going to form a commission … CLINTON: I am totally committed to making sure Social Security is solvent. You’ve got to begin to reign in the budget, pay as you go, to try to replenish our Social Security Trust Fund. And with all due respect, the last time we had a crisis in Social Security was 1983. Pres. Reagan and Speaker Tip O’Neill came up with a commission. That was the best and smartest way, because you’ve got to get Republicans and Democrats together. That’s what I will do. And I will say, #1, don’t cut benefits on current beneficiaries they’re already having a hard enough time. And #2, do not impose additional tax burdens on middle-class families.

OBAMA: That commission raised the retirement age, and also raised the payroll tax. So Sen. Clinton can’t have it both ways.

“Hillary understands that there is no way to accomplish that goal (Preserve Social Security) without asking the highest-income Americans to pay more, including options to tax some of their income above the current Social Security cap, and taxing some of their income not currently taken into account by the Social Security system.”

I normally skip Nick Gillespie articles. His oddball attempts at cleverness get in the way of whatever pedestrian message he typically purveys. In this article he tells us no one in the GOP debate discussed the deficit and says parenthetically “(coff, coff Rand Paul)”. Wtf does “coff” mean? Did he misspell cough? Still wouldn’t make sense. It turns out coff is the past participle for an obsolete German word that means to buy. Did Nick mean, in his unnecessarily, obstructively clever way, “buy, buy”? That makes no sense, “buy, buy Rand Paul”? Then it struck me, Nick probably thinks coff means bye, as in goodbye. Now that makes sense–he’s noting fiscally responsible Rand Paul has exited the debates. Having figured that out do I even want to finish the article? May be later.

Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

I know, I get that all the time when I attempt to make the most over-the-top ridiculous argument I can and somehow people don’t grasp that I’m attempting to poke fun at idiots who actually believe such nonsense.

Also, they don’t understand the difference between sarcasm and satire. You really should post that comment on a blue site and see how many idiots you can troll.

my friend’s half-sister makes $77 /hour on the computer . She has been laid off for 7 months but last month her income was $12280 just working on the computer for a few hours. browse around this web-site

Politicians are most fervently devoted… to getting re-elected. They will generally say, do or appear to be ANYTHING necessary to further that goal.

So if you can promise THIS generation the moon and stars (by borrowing from future generations), why not? The politicians will be dead or out-of-office before the bill comes due – and even if they aren’t they’re better able to “run for the hills” when the shtf.

But who is REALLY yo blame for this mess?

I say it’s the stupid-beyond-belief voters who would vote for a POS like George Bush or Barack Insane Obozo. Maybe the idiots in the current generation won’t suffer that much – but I derive some pleasure from knowing all of their children, and their children’s children – will suffer in a hell of their making.

The federal government, unlike state and local governments, is Monetarily Sovereign. It NEVER can run short of its own sovereign currency. Even if all federal tax collections fell to $0, the federal government could continue spending forever.

The federal “debt” actually is the total of DEPOSITS in T-security accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank. The “debt” is bank DEPOSITS.

When was the last time you worried that your own local bank has too many deposits? Banks boast about the size of their deposits.

So why are you concerned about the deposits at the Federal Reserve Bank, a bank that never can run short of dollars?

Concern about federal debt is a giant con job, implemented by the rich, the purpose of which is to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest.

Most federal deficit spending benefits the non-rich. When federal deficit spending is reduced, the non-rich are hurt most. The Gap is widened.

“Rich” is a comparative. If you had $100 and everyone else had $1 you would be rich. It is the Gap that makes the rich rich, and the wider the Gap, the richer they are.

The next time you read an article decrying the federal debt, ask yourself this question: What is the real motivation. If the federal government cannot run short of dollars, and the federal “debt” is simply the total of DEPOSITS in T-security accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank, why does the writer want to reduce the debt?

So you believe it a good thing that the feds simply print whatever currency they need?

When they do this they devalue the currency which can effective reduce the value of the debt to zero. It also does the same to whatever currency you have in your pocket and your bank. This hurts the “non rich” by devaluing anything they own and by definition they can absorb the loss less than the “rich”.

If (like Japan in the 1990s) it spends a TON of money on “bridges to no-where” with all the deficit spending, society (Japan in the case) is CLEARLY worse off, for mis-spent, mis-allocated resources!

If the USA fed spends all these tons of money blowing people up, across the globe, and making more enemies, we’ll probably be far worse off. ***IF*** the fed spent it on better bridges, highways, sewer plants, and giant water pipes and canals to move flood stage waters from the Mississippi to the parched segments of the western USA, then just MAYBE we’d be better off. Or, fending off the next giant meteor strike, for example.

WAY important here!!! WHAT is the money SPENT on??? PS, enough of “stimulating the economy” by torching perfectly good used cars, too! Why not burn down good houses while we are at it?

PPS, don’t forget the example of Greece, where decifit spending supported 10 billion gov-employee mooches? Now the Germans-etc. are having to bail them out? WHO is going to bail out the USA when we turn into a giant case of Greece?

my neighbor’s half-sister makes $83 every hour on the computer . She has been without a job for 9 months but last month her payment was $17900 just working on the computer for a few hours. why not try this out

My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail. +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.buzznews99.com

my friend’s half-sister makes $77 /hour on the computer . She has been laid off for 7 months but last month her income was $12280 just working on the computer for a few hours. browse around this web-site

I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.